Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not what she said, but you've certainly been told to repeat that falsehood.
Harrier heard the exact words that Justice Sotomayor said.
She stated that Latinas were superior to white males.
Quote:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
It doesn't surprise Harrier that you want to run away from that, but it is a fact.
Just go over to the "Don't Tell me to Smile" thread. It's full of men telling women how to feel and pretending to understand what women's issues are. I mean, hey, they've never been sexually harassed on the street by strangers, so it's no big deal, right?
If you think things are just peachy all the time because you're a white male, you're going to do the same thing in legal terms. As, in fact, they already have: "There is no racism, America! We're happy, so you must be happy too. End of discussion!" Then the next day we hear about the Clippers owner and Cliven Bundy -- two happy white men -- to prove that racism is still alive and well in America, thankyouverymuch.
What next? Our happy white men ruling that it's perfectly Constitutional to sexually harass women because hey, it's not a bad thing really, and women are just making it up? Is that what you expect in your Supreme Court?
And yes, you absolutely should seek a lawyer whose experience and expertise matches your case. Why do you think Gloria Allred gets hired for all the sexual discrimination cases?
Why are you so obsessed with gender and skin color?
Harrier heard the exact words that Justice Sotomayor said.
She stated that Latinas were superior to white males.
It doesn't surprise Harrier that you want to run away from that, but it is a fact.
Quote:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Where you get that bizarre translation of her words is beyond me. It's not even close.
First, she never says "superior" or even any synonyms for the word. You made that up.
Second, she says "I would hope … would more often than not." You simply can't get more conditional than that. Hardly a definitive statement of anything, let alone superiority.
Third, she specifically mentions certain circumstances in which a "wise Latina" might have a different understanding of an issue. More conditions.
JMqueen is not surprised that you ignore all of the above and just make stuff up.
Here, I'll help you understand.
"Harrier probably has a far greater understanding of the life experience of white males than a Latina woman might have."
Anything you object to there? Because that's all she said, no matter how many times you make stuff up about it. Many condition, and a certain set of circumstance specified. No mention of "superior" or any synonym.
Why are you so obsessed with gender and skin color?
I love the way you make ugly, false assumptions about people and then ask why they do it, in order to distract attention from the fact that you have no arguments or logic.
Why are you so obsessed with gender and skin color?
Why are you? You're the one bringing the faux outrage about her being racist against white males into this thread, not me. I just responded to you. But nice try.
If you think things are just peachy all the time because you're a white male, you're going to do the same thing in legal terms.
What next? Our happy white men ruling that it's perfectly Constitutional to sexually harass women because hey, it's not a bad thing really, and women are just making it up? Is that what you expect in your Supreme Court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Of course, you might well believe that a white male understands issues of Latina women's lives better than Justice Sotomayor, and that wouldn't surprise me. But you and other posters on this thread shouldn't deliberately delete part of her quote to make it sound like what you want. It just makes your arguments look weak.
And I'd love to see more people of color on the SC. Who was it who appointed most of the recent white men? Let's see, oh yes … that was St. Ronnie and GHW Bush. St. Ronnie did give us the inimitable Sandra Day O'Connor, but it took Clinton and Obama to name more women. And the only minority woman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
I love the way you make ugly, false assumptions about people and then ask why they do it, in order to distract attention from the fact that you have no arguments or logic.
Hope it was brought up, but Clarence Thomas was also a product of affirmative action. Back in their day, if you were a minority and/or a woman, and talented, your options were limited. AA opened the professional world up for them and many others like them. Mostly white women BTW.
When Harrier visits D.C., he is going to attend oral arguments hoping to be there the moment that Justice Thomas actually says something.
His written opinions and dissents are works of art.
....refering to yourself in the third person, what, you a bob dole wanna be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
